
003 



866 669^ 



HoUinger 

pH S3 

MiURunH)3-2193 



F 291 

.BS8 

Copy 1 RECONSTRUCTION OF GEORGIA. 



SPEECH 



HOE BENJAMIN F. BUTLER, 



OF m:a.ssa^chusetts. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

4 

DECEMBER 20 AND 21, 1869. "5 



WASHINGTON: 
F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, 

UEPOIITERS AND nUNTliUS OF THE DEBATES OF CONQUKSS. 
1869. 



n 



RECONSTRUCTION OF GEORGIA. 



The House having under consideration the bill to 
promote the reconstruction of Georgia- 
Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, said : 
Mr. Speaker: I desire to call the attention 
of the House for a moment to the action of this 
bill. I do not propose to discuss the merits 
of the great question which is involved in its 
passage, because that for two years has been 
before the country and is thoroughly and fully 
understood ; but I wish to call the attention 
of the House to the several provisions of the 
bill, and the objections in detail which may be 
brought against them. 

This bill was carefully drawn by the Senate 
committee, then debated at great length, espe- 
cially by the Opposition, and now comes before 
this House. In regard to the mere details of 
the bill amendments might be proposed which 
would or would not be of any very great con- 
sequence. There may be matters which if one 
had his own way exactly he would prefer to 
the exact wording of the bill as it stands. But 
I must call the attention of the House to the 
fact that in order to get any such immaterial 
amendment we must endanger the bill, and 
thereby endanger the lives of many good peo- 
ple in the State of Georgia. An attempt to 
secure the adoption of any little amendment 
which a man might think would make the bill 
a little better, and which, perhaps, might make 
it a little better, would simply endanger great 
rights. Therefore I hope that no merely ver- 
bal amendments, or any amendments which 
are not vital in the judgment of gentlemen on 
this side of the House, will be either offered 
or pressed. 



The first section of the bill provides that the 
Governor of the State of Georgia shall forth- 
with by proclamation call together the Legis- 
lature. The amendment of the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Beck] proposes that the Legis- 
lature shall not be convened within less than 
thirty nor more than sixty days after the date 
of the proclamation. Wrong and murder 
have gone on in the State of Georgia long 
enough ; and it is our duty at the earliest pos- 
sible hour to interpose ; and I may be per- 
mitted to call attention to the fact that the 
other branch of Congress thought it so clearly 
their duty to take prompt action that they did 
a thing almost unheard of at this stage of a ses- 
sion ; they sat out this bill at a night session in 
order that they might afiPord relief to the suffer- 
ing Union men, black and white, in the State 
of Georgia. This section calls upon the Gov- 
ernor to convene the Legislature forthwith. 

The next amendment of the gentleman from 
Kentucky provides that the Governor shall 
order elections to be held to fill vacancies 
before the Legislature shall be called together. 
Sir, if I could suppose that the Congress of the 
United States would listen for one moment to 
that proposition I should suppose the com- 
mission of a great wrong. Let me state some 
of the vacancies that there exists in that body. 
One senator has been murdered ; two repre- 
sentatives, white and colored, have been mur- 
dered since we adjourned, and two murdered 
before. Standing here in my place in the 
spring, at our late session, I warned members 
of the House that if they postponed a bill for 
the settlement of the affairs of Georgia on their 



heads would be the blood of more than one man. 
And two of the Legislature who came up here 
with the Governor to represent the condition 
of Georgia, and were in the House and heard 
my words of warning, who went out from this 
floor, were murdered before they had reached 
their liomes, to which they were returning. 
And the Governor of the State of Georgia has 
offered in vain since a reward of $5,000 for the 
arrest of their murderers. General Terry, the 
able and efficient commander in that district, 
has been searching in vain to ferret out the 
slayers of those who have been murdered in 
Georgia in the plain sight of many men. 

There have been fifteen other members of 
the Legislature of Georgia, colored and white, 
driven from their homes and are to-day refu- 
gees from the counties they were elected to 
represent, driven off by Kuklux Klans. The 
Governor was requested to give the names of 
some of them to the committee, and did give 
the names of some ten or eleven of such refu- 
gees from rebel violence. 

Now, sir, shall we listen to the proposition 
to wait until the rebel element of Georgia shall 
elect men in the place of those who have been 
murdered because they were loyal to the Union ? 
Not much, I think. I think it is a new way in 
Republican government to change your major- 
ities to murder your opponents, aud then ask for 
time to elect others in the place of those who 
have been murdered. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 
a great wrong would be done to allow this rebel 
element, these men whose opponents have 
been murdered for their loyalty, to take ad- 
vantage of their own wrong. I trust that that 
amendment will not prevail. 

You will observe that the bill allows the Gov- 
ernor to call together every member of the Le- 
gislature except those who have been murdered 
and two who have died. When they meet it 
provides for a separation of the "sheep from 
the goats," and the good and true loyal men 
will have a test put to them. The men who 
opposed the Government and who are still 
opposing the Government will also have a test 
put to them to try their loyalty to the Govern- 
ment. What is that test? Let me read : 

Each and every member aud each and every per- 
son claumngtobo elected as a member of said senate 
or house of representatives shall, in addition to tak- 
ms the oath or oaths required by the coustitution of 



Georgia, also take and subscribe and file in the ofiBco 
of the secretary of State of the State of Georgia one 
of the following oaths or atlirmations, namely: "I 
do solemnly swear (oraflirm, as the ease may be) that 
I have never held the office or exercised the duties 
of a Senator or Ilepresentative in Congress, nor been 
a member of the Legislature of any State of the Uni- 
ted States, nor liold any civil office created bylaw 
for the administration of any general law of a State, 
or for the administration of justice in any State or 
under_ the laws of the United States, nor held any 
office in the military or naval service of the United 
States, and thereafter engaged in insurrection or 
rebellion against the United States, or gave aid or 
comfort to its enemies, or rendered, except in con- 
sequence of direct physical force, any support or aid 
t^o any insurrection or rebellion against the United 
States, nor held any office under, or given any sup- 
port to, any government of any kind organized or 
acting in hostility to the United States or levying 
war against tlic United States. So help me God, (or 
on the pains and penalties of perjury, as the case 
may be.)" 

Now, you will observe that it recites almost 
the words of the fourteenth amendment, and 
excludes all those who cannot swear that they 
have not been Senators and Representatives of 
the Congress of the United States, or held any 
civil office created by law for the administration 
of any general law of a State or for the admin- 
istration of justice in any State or under the 
laws of the United States, because all those 
officers are required by law to take an oath to 
support the Constitution of the United States. 
Now, ray friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Beck,] 
with his usual keenness and foresight, comes 
in to move to amend this by adding ''and those 
taking an oath to support the Constitution of 
the United States ;" that is to say, that you are 
not only to prove that the man held an ofiBce, 
but also that he took the oath he was required 
by law to take. They propose to dodge between 
the two. A man who is known to have been a 
judge, although it may be a dishonest and unlaw- 
ful judge, if hedidnottaketheoath which quali- 
fied him, and it also may be that no one can 
prove whether before he entered upon the per- 
formance of his office he took the oath pre- 
scribed by the Constitution, and yet he is not 
disqualified because of the defect in proof. 
Men will be found who will say, I do not 
remember whether I took the oath of office or 
not. We shall find very many men with short 
memories in this regard, and who, although 
they held these offices cannot remember whether 
they took the required oath or not, and if 
they take the oath will be qualified because it 
cannot be proved whether or not they did ac- 
tually take their oflScial oath. 

If that amendment be adopted this provision 



will be rendered nugatory and useless in prac- 
tice. As it is we take the presumption that 
every man who has held any one of these 
offices took the oath of office which the con- 
stitution required he should take ; and having 
taken the oath of office and then gone into the 
rebellion he is therefore disqualified. 

The next amendment that ray friend from 
Kentucky [Mr. Beck] wishes to make in this 
section is to put in the word " voluntarily." I 
call the attention of the House to the fact that 
the fourteenth amendment disqualifies men 
who afforded aid to the rebellion, whether 
voluntarily or involuntarily. Now, the Senate 
of the United States, believing that it might 
be felt to be a little hard to disqualify a man 
who was forced into the rebellion, and wishing 
to be tender toward all such, and being more 
kind and more magnanimous than any Govern- 
ment in the world ever was before, have put 
in the words "every man who gave any aid 
except where he was overcome by physical 
force." Now, what was the reason of putting 
in that clause in the oath ? It was this : every 
man in the South, if you would believe them 
now, was, with a few leading exceptions, forced 
into the rebellion. Go down South, and you 
wonder where the men came from who fought 
against the Union. The men you meet on 
every hand declare to you, " We were always 
Union men ; we stood up for the Union cause 
till we were driven against our will into the 
rebellion ; we were overcome by superior 
force." If you admit such statements to be 
true you would wonder who fought the battles 
on the part of the enemy when it required a 
million of northern soldiers to overcome the 
armies of the rebellion. 

They use this salve for their consciences down 
there. Many men say, " I did not go volun- 
tarily into the rebellion. I kept out of the rebel- 
lion until my State seceded, and then I was 
forced by ray oath of allegiance to the State to 
follow her in the rebellion. I was obliged to go 
with my State, and therefore my aid to the 
rebellion was involuntary." There are thou- 
sands and thousands who will take the oath 
with that reservation ; and, in order that there 
may be no mistakes, it is enacted in this bill 
that, except given under thepressure of physical 



force, aid to the rebellion shall be taken to be 
voluntary. 

And such has been the law of all nations. It 
is held by every rule of public international 
law to be the duty of every subject of every 
Government, to resist even unto death all 
attempts to force him into rebellion against 
the Government and no man has ever been 
held excused under any Government for taking 
part in rebellion against it until it is shown 
that he was actually overcome by superior 
physical force. 

The law ©f nations requires that the physical 
force used shall be to an extent to endanger 
life and limb; and this has always been held 
to be only an excuse and not a justification in 
the subject for participation in a rebellion. 
Therefore this bill in this provision follows the 
great law of nations. I trust, then, that the 
amendment will not prevail. 

It is a very specious argument to use when 
it is said, "Are you going to disqualify a poor 
man who was driven into the rebellion?" 
I answer, no. But when the question is put, 
' 'Are you going to disqualify a man who thought 
he must go into the rebellion because he con- 
sidered when his State seceded he owed alle- 
giance to his State and must follow it?" I an- 
swer, "Yes; he ought not to have admitted for 
a moment there was any allegiance higher than 
that which he owed to the Government." That 
distinction we make in this bill. A man con- 
scripted and forced into the rebellion is to be 
excused ; a man who for the sake of gaining 
or retaining the applause of men or smiles of 
women went into the rebellion, under whatever 
circumstances, is not to be excused. 

The other oath provided in this is simply an 
oath that all disabilities have been removed. 
Then we go on to say that any person declining 
to take these oaths is excluded; and that, I 
believe, is the entire action of the second sec- 
tion. 

The third section provides for punishment 
in cases of perjury and false swearing. 

The fourth section provides that the Legis- 
lature, purged in the way prescribed in the 
previous portion of the bill, shall have power 
to organize and shall proceed to organize. Now, 
I need hardly call the attention of the House to 



6 



the fact so well known, that when this Legis- 
lature got together on a former occasion a large 
number of its members were negroes, and a still 
greater number of them were rebels at heart ; 
and with singular magnanimity the colored 
men said to the other class of members whom 
I have mentioned: " We will not bring up your 
rebellion ortheblacknessofyour hearts against 
you to exclude you if you will not bring up the 
blackness of our faces against us to exclude 
us;" and so they made a fair agreement that 
there should be no disqualification of anybody, 
either because of color or previous rebellion; 
but the moment the black-hearted men got in 
their seats by the permission of the colored 
men they voted out the black-faced men. This 
section proposes to undo that great wrong, so 
that the true-hearted men shall be in and the 
black-hearted men out. Those men who did 
the meanest political act that history ever re- 
corded are to be purged from that Legislature. 

The next section, the fifth section, provides 
that every one who by force, violence, or fraud 
shall interfere with the men so elected to pre- 
vent them from taking their seats shall be 
deemed guilty of felony. I take is that no man 
here will have the face to say anything against 
that section when it is admitted that ten or fif- 
teen of the members of the Legislature are 
driven from their homes by the Kuklux Klan 
and that senators and representatives have been 
murdered because they were Republican sen- 
ators and representatives. I think that there 
should be some provision which should punish 
as felony — ay, as the highest felony — any such 
act of force or fraud, 

Nov/, sir, I have heard it said — a gentleman 
who argued the case of Georgia before the 
committee dared to stand up and tell us — that 
Georgia is as quiet and peaceful and always 
has been as any northern State. I put the ques- 
tion to him, "Sir, do you know any northern 
State where they murder senators and repre- 
sentatives and the murders are unavenged?" 
In answer he told us to look at the report of 
the Secretary of the Interior and we would find 
that there are more crimes committed in this 
District than in the whole of Georgia. I asked 
him what he meant by '' crimes," and he said, 
"I mean arrests for crime." That is true, I 



have no doubt ; and he might have said the 
same of almost any village in the land, because 
we arrest crimes and the criminals, so that it 
appears on our records in the northern States 
who commit crimes and how many are com- 
mitted ; but in Georgia there is neither arrest 
nor punishment, and it does not appear who 
commit crimes. 

The assent of the whole community seems to 
shield the men who there commit the foulest 
crimes against loyal men. With all these mur- 
ders there has been no white man punished. 
No white man has been tried, or arrested even, 
for the murder in the case of Dr. Ayer. The 
Conservatives seemed to think they must get 
up something to meet the cry of his blood to 
the northern heart, and they arrested a poor 
old negro man for killing him and telegraphed 
North that they had caught the murderer ; but 
the negro went before the magistrate and the 
grand jury and nothing was found against him. 
Tliere was not a scintilla of evidence that he 
had murdered his friend, the man that stood 
by him ; and that murder is yet unavenged. 

And yet there are gentlemen in this House 
who, I understand, will move to postpone this 
bill, that the rest of the Republican majority 
of that State Legislature may be murdered, 
even during the Christmas week, the time 
when the Son of God came on earth to bring 
peace and good will to man ! Give them the 
time asked for, until the third week in Janu- 
ary, and the Kuklux of Georgia can alter the 
Union majority in that Legislature. At any 
rate, they may have enough killed or driven 
out of the State, so that when the Legislature 
comes together and the incompetent men are 
weeded out, there will not be a quorum with 
which to pass the fifteenth amendment or 
do anything else ; and then they will claim 
that as there is no quorum there must be anew 
election, and in that new election they will 
take care to elect men who are just as bitter 
as those we shall get rid of because of their 
disabilities, but who can by stretch of con- 
science or otherwise take the oath prescribed 
by this bill. Are you about to make your- 
selves parties to any such proceeding as that 
or tempt other misguided men into that course ? 

I trust, therefore, there will be no postpone- 



ment to allow the rebels to work their wicked 
wills on the Union men of Georgia. The argu- 
ment for postponement will be pressed that 
these men have promised, if we will give them 
time, to reinstate the negroes in the Legisla- 
ture ; that they passed a resolution to submit 
the question of the eligibility of negroes to 
ofGce to the courts, which Governor Bullock 
vetoed. He vetoed it rightly, because he un- 
derstood, as the Democratic majority under- 
stood, that they did not mean to stand by the 
resolution, and that its passage was a mere 
political dodge to stave off action by Congress 
at the last session. But the question was sub- 
mitted to the supreme court of Georgia on a 
case made for that purpose, and the supreme 
court decided that negroes are eligible to office 
in that State. The Conservatives now say that 
Governor Bullock has not reconvened the Legis- 
lature for the purpose of reseating the negroes. 
Governor Bullock testified before the commit- 
tee that he bad been ready at all times to recall 
the Legislature whenever any considerable por- 
tion of it or any leading gentlemen on the Dem- 
ocratic side would say that they intended to 
reseat the negroes or do justice in any way ; 
that no man on that side has ever called on him 
to give him any assurances of that sort, but that 
every one of them has given assurances to the 
contrary, that they never intend to reseat the 
negroes. 

A former Democratic member of this House, 
Mr. Tift, whoappearedbefore the committee — 
and he is the only man who has given the assur- 
ance to us that the negroes would be reseated — 
said that he had no doubt that, if the Legislature 
is called together, they v/ill reseat the negroes 
and unseat their friends, but he is repudiated 
by all the leading papers in the State. 

Now, I will ask the Clerk to read a resume 
of the opinions of the leading papers of the 
State of Georgia upon this subject, which will 
be found in the Daily Intelligencer, of Atlanta, 
Georgia, under date of December lo, 18G9, 

The Clerk read as follows : 

" The Democrat ic Press United. — The Democratic 
press of the State, with perhaps two individual ex- 
ceptions, have pronounced atcainst the plan of Mr. 
Tift for squaring the legislation of the State to accord 
with the Republican party in Congress. Wc do not 
now call to mind a single Democratic paper of recog- 
nized position and influence in the party that has not 
declared boldly in opposition to the tame and humil- 
iating scheme which would exchange the Democratic 



platform for a few seats in Congress. Among the last 
to take position on this point is the Augusta Chron- 
icle, which closes an article in its issue of the 12th 
as follow.s: 

" 'If the Radicals in Congress desire the reseating 
of the negroes let them pass an act to that effect in 
accordance with Grant's recommendation. Leading 
Radicals seem to be well posted in regard to the pre- 
vailing sentiment of the Legislature and are content 
to give us time to accomplish our dishonor. We pre- 
fer—infinitely prefer— the course recommended by 
General Grant.'" 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I also 
hold in my hand a statement signed by the 
ablest representative in Georgia on that side 
of tke House, the Democratic speaker of the 
house of delegates of the Georgia Legislature, 
tending to prove that they never intended to 
be bound by any decision the supreme court 
of that State should make as to the eligibility 
of the negroes. I ask the Clerk to read it. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Hall of the House of Representatives. 

Atlanta, February 18, 1869. 

Dear Sir: Your reporter has verbally informed 
me that you desired to obtain from me the language 
used by me a few days since while discussing the 
veto message of Governor Bullock, of a certain reso- 
lution which I had introduced, and which the In- 
telligencer had seen proper to discuss in several 
issues. That I may not be misunderstood I will 
comply with the request, and give, as well as I can, 
the language used by me on that occasion, which 
was substantially as follows: * * * * 

"Now, Mr. Speaker, I resist the construction which 
has here been placed upon my resolution. There is 
no attempt whatever by that resolution to reseat the 
negroes in the Legislature. I deny that the supreme 
court has any right under the constitution of the 
State to determine the question of the qualifications 
of members to this Legislature. The only question 
to be referred to the supreme court is the right of 
the negro to hold office in Georgia. And while it 
may be true that a decision of the court to the effect 
that color should be no disqualification, it could only 
apply to the next General Assembly to be elected. 
There can be no appeal from the decision of the last 
session on behalf of the excluded members to the 
court. In the absence of any judicial decision upon 
that subject they decided for themselves, and their 
decision, so far as this General Assembly is con- 
cerned, will stand without appeal, unless reversed 
by the strong arm of military power. No person 
can, without doing violence to language, place the 
construction upon the resolution now before the 
house, which has been placed upon it by certain of 
its opponents. No one can do it without risking his 
reputation for intelligence." * * :s * 

I have the honor to remain, your obedient ser- 
vant, . N. P. PRICE. 

Judge J. J. Whitaker, of Intelligencer. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Now I 
think that no gentleman in this House will say 
that there was ever any intention on the part 
of the Legislature to submit to the supreme 
court of the State of Georgia the question of 
reseating the negroes, or of allowing the opin- 
ion of that court to have any effect. 

Mr. Speaker, I was told by a Democratic 
gentleman who represents a constituency io 



8 



Georgia, that while he believed and so repre- 
sented to Congress at its last session that the 
negroes would be reseated if the supreme court 
so held, still from his knowledge of the temper 
of the majority of the house of representatives 
of Georgia now he had not the slightest hope 
afit. 

Now, why are we, the Congress of the United 
States, to be called upon to wait on bended 
knees, and with suppliant attitude ask the Legis- 
lature of Georgia to do what is just and right 
and what their own supreme court have decided 
they ought long since to have done, and what 
they would have done before now if they meant 
to do it at all? When the supreme court pub- 
lished their decision if the Democratic major- 
ity meant to be bound by it every man who 
voted for the exclusion of the negroes should 
have signed a petition to the Governor to call 
the Legislature together at once for the pur- 
pose of having these men reseated ; but not 
one of them has done so. 

Mr. WOODWARD. Will the gentleman 
allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Certainly. 

Mr. WOODWARD. The Legislature has 
not been in session since that decision of the 
supreme court. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Well. 

Mr. WOODWARD. You admit that? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Certainly 
I do. 

Mr. WOODWARD. The Legislature had no 
power to convene themselves. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. No, sir. 

Mr. WOODWARD. And the Governor has 
refused to convene them. Now, will the gen- 
tleman tell us how the Legislature could have 
complied with the decision of the supreme 
court? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. If I ad- 
mitted all the premises of the gentleman I 
should have to admit his conclusions. But I am 
sorry he did not hear what I said ; I suppose it 
was for want of clearness of speech on my part. 
I did not say the Governor had refused to call 
the Legislature together, for he has never done 
so, nor has he ever been moved by anybody to 
do so. I said that he had talked with all the 
leading men on that side that he could get in 
communication with, and found that they 



neither desired the Legislature to be called 
together for that purpose nor to have the 
negroes reseated in case they were called to- 
gether. He did not think it advisable, and I 
agree with him, to put the State to the expense 
of calling together a Legislature whose action 
would be of no use and no validity. 

Mr. WOODWARD. Does the gentleman 
admit that the Governor has not issued any 
proclamation convening the Legislature ? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Certainly 
I do. 

Mr. WOODWARD. Then, sir, the Gov- 
eraor, who alone under the constitution of the 
State of Georgia could have convened the 
Legislature, has not done so ; and I now ask 
the gentleman to explain why he holds the 
Legislature at fault for not complying with the 
decision of the supreme court of the State? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I thought 
I had made myself plain ; but I will restate my 
position, so that it can be understood by any 
man of the most ordinary capacity. 

The majority of that Legislature having ex- 
cluded the negroes, and by the letter of their 
speaker which has just been read at the desk 
having declared that they never meant to re- 
seat those negroes, and the members of the 
Legislature with whom the Governor conversed 
having all said, as the Governor testified this 
morning, that they did not mean to reseat the 
negroes, and when he had kept open all sum- 
mer, as he told us, an offer to call the Legis- 
lature whenever he could be assured that they 
would be reseated, I say the burden is on them 
and not on him to explain the non-action of the 
Legislature, unless they can show that they 
asked him to convene the Legislature and that 
he refused. That is my view of the matter. 

Now, sir, the seventh section of this act pro- 
vides — 

That upon the application of the Governor of 
Georgia the President of the United States shall 
employ such military or naval forces of the United 
States as may be necessary to enforce and execute 
the preceding provisions of this act. 

I have heard outside a criticism upon this 
section that it means such military and naval 
forces as the Governor of the State may think 
necessary. By no means. The intention is 
that such troops may be employed as the Presi- 
dent of the United States may deem necessary. 



9 



The Governor, when he thinks any military 
force is needed, must call upon the President, 
and it is for the President to send down there 
under his officers such force as upon a view of 
the whole case he may think necessary. 

I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is about 
to be launched upon this House an argument 
to the prejudice — an argument having for its 
subject an attack upon the personal character 
of the Governor ; for I have heard such an 
argument elsewhere. I, however, call gentle- 
men's attention to the question of the fairness 
of dealing with the personal character and repu- 
tation of a man who has no voice on this floor 
by making charges against him which he has 
no opportunity to answer, and putting on rec- 
ord criminations to which he is unable to reply. 
Such considerations will be only arguments to 
the prejudice, and I trust the vote of the House 
will show they have no weight with them. I 
cannot see their pertinency to the matter in 
hand.. 

The Governor under this bill has but two 
things to do. One is to call the Legislature 
together by proclamation ; the other is to call 
upon the President whenever military forces 
may be needed to preserve order and property 
and life in the State of Georgia; and in desig- 
nating the Governor as the officer to call upon 
the President for military forces, the bill follows 
the analogy of the Constitution of the United 
States, which provides that the President shall 
send forces to aid in suppressing domestic in- 
surrection in a State whenever the Governor 
shall call upon him so to do. 

Mr. MOORE, of Illinois. I would like to 
ask the gentleman one question. As I under- 
stand, this Legislature, while in session and 
while all the members were present, elected 
Senators to represent the State in the Senate 
of the United States. Now, if this bill be passed, 
and the original Legislature be called together, 
will the status which existed at that time be 
restored, and will the election of those Sen- 
ators be considered valid under the bill ? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I am very 
much obliged to my friend for putting that 
question, for I had intended to refer to it. This 
bill does not interfere with that matter at all. 
The question of the qualifications of persons 
Ghoaeo as Senators must be referred to the 



body in which they are to sit. I hold in my 
hand the report of the Senate committee, who, 
upon the question of the admission of Mr. Hill, 
reported "that the Legislature violated the 
conditions under which it was allowed to or- 
ganize by permitting disloyal persons to parti- 
cipate in its proceedings;" and the committee 
conclude with the following recommendation : 

" Wherefore your committee focls called upon to 
recommend that Mr. Hill be not allowed to take his 
seat in the Senate, for the reason that Georgia is not 
entitled to representation in Congress.'' 

So that the passage of this bill will not affect 
that question. There may or may not be a 
new election of Senators after a loyal Legisla- 
ture is assembled in that State. 

The eighth section provides : 

That the Legislature shall ratify the fifteenth 
amendment proposed to the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States before Senators and Representatives from 
Georgia arc admitted to seats in Congress. 

Thisprovisionis objected toby some because 
it is feared the Democratic party will allege 
that coercion was brought to bear upon the 
State to pass the amendment, and that the 
ratification given under such cireum&Lances 
will be invalid. 

I wish to call the attention of the House a 
moment to that, and in so doing I wish to re- 
mark that in the case of almost every admis- 
sion of a new State into the Union before the 
war, as in the cases of Michigan, Missouri, 
Texas, and I might almost say of every new 
State, conditions-precedent were fixed by the 
Congress of the United States. Certain things 
were to be done or certain things were omitted 
to be done by a State before its admission into 
the Union could take place, and it was never 
until these latter days that we heard for the first 
time that all tliose conditions-precedent were 
null and void because such congressional actioa 
was a coercion of a State. 

Now, sir, such is the bill before you. I have 
only touched very generally upon its provisions. 
For one I have no more doubt of the power of 
Congress to set this great wrong done in Georgia 
right than I have in the power of Congress to 
legislate upon any other subject relating to the 
general welfare of the United States. We 
admitted this State upon the implied condition 
that it should have a government to carry out 
the laws of the United States in good earnest 
and good faith. Ou the contrary, the State has 



10 



undertaken to fly in the face of every just and 
proper law of the United States. We have now 
the right to resume the power which we gave 
when we allowed the State to emerge from 
rebellion and be admitted as a part of the 
Union, and to require such further conditions 
and restrictions as to its conduct as wrong- 
doing on its part has made necessary. 

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have so long 
occupied the attention of the House in explain- 
ing this bill ; I have been much longer than I 
intended. I trust that our friends on the 
opposite side will be allowed the full measure 
of debate within the time. 

Tuesday, December 21, 1869. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. In rising 
to close this debate, having but a few minutes 
left, I shall not expect, nor will it be expected, 
that I shall answer at length each one of the 
elaborately prepared arguments of the gentle- 
men on the other side, and more especially 
those which I much more deplore, the argu- 
ments of the gentlemen [Messrs. Bingham and 
Fauksworth] who have heretofore acted with 
us, but who now seem to have caught some- 
thing of infection from the neighborhood which 
surrounds them. 

The first argument, presented by the able 
gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Voorhees,] 
was that we are estopped now from doing any- 
thing to Georgia, because we have admitted 
her into the family of States ; because, as he 
exj^ressed it, we have placed her star among 
the stars of the cerulean blue of the firmament 
of our Union, and we cannot strike it out. 

No ; I agree with the gentleman we cannot 
strike it out ; but Georgia herself can do so ; 
and although we put that star there, those who 
are now in charge of that State have within a 
very few days refused to raise our flag, with 
the star in it, over her public buildings when 
invited in the most solemn manner so to do. 
And I press this bill to-day because I desire to 
put the State of Georgia into the hands of 
those who will raise that flag with every star 
true and loyal to the Union, representing loy- 
alty and truth, not rebellion and treason. 

The gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Eld- 
ridge,] not content to advocate the cause of 
hia party friends in Georgia, saw fit to attack 



the State of Massachusetts. He should have 
been well aware that Massachusetts is never 
attacked without finding a defender; feeble, it 
may be, but she is generally able to defend 
herself. He caused to be read at the desk a 
synopsis of the report of a commission ap- 
pointed by the Governor of Massachusetts to 
ascertain the abuses existing in the treatment 
of the insane of that State. I agree with the 
gentleman that there are in that report very 
unfortunate, nay, very improper, exhibitions 
of treatment of those unfortunates; but the 
gentleman does not seem to comprehend the 
difference between the State of Georgia and 
the State of Massachusetts in that regard. la 
Massachusetts when anybody is harmed in life, 
property, or estate, there is an investigation, 
the harm is relieved, and those committing the 
wrong are punished; in the State of Georgia 
there is neither investigation nor punishment. 
To bring about in Georgia a state of things 
like that in Massachusetts we desire the pas- 
sage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the very doc- 
ument which was read, and which is made the 
subject of railing accusation, shows that the 
Governor of Massachusetts was instant in the 
investigation of private wrongs wherever they 
were alleged to exist. 

But I was not especially alarmed at what 
seemed to be the gentleman's threat that when 
hereafter his party shall get into power in Con- 
gress they will treat Massachusetts as we are 
now treating Georgia because of Massachu- 
setts' neglect of her insane. There is a distinc- 
tion in the cases which the gentleman does not 
seem to take. What we are now doing is this : 
we, the Representatives of the loyal men of the 
country, learning that Georgia by her author- 
ities ill treats the Union men, the loyal men 
of that State, and does not protect them in life 
or property or assure them civil or political 
rights, therefore we are about to interpose to 
give the direction of affairs of the State to loyal 
men there because we and they are loyal men. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin by this same 
rule threatens us that the Representatives of 
Massachusetts may be turned out of Congress 
for her treatment of her insane. Yes, sir, that 
may happen when insane men are in a majority 
in this House as loyal men now are. They 
may then turn Massachusetts out for her want of 



11 



proper treatment of the insane as we turn out 
the Representatives from Georgia because of 
her treatment of loyal men. I agree that such 
a course may be anticipated when the gentle- 
man's insane party gets into power, but not 
untilthen. 

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Speaker 

TheSFEAKEB, pro teynpore, (Mr. Welker.) 
Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Eld- 
ridge?] 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I cannot 
yield, for I have not the time. 

Mr. ELDRIDGE. I trust the gentleman 
will not misrepresent me; I made no such 
statement. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I knew 
that the gentleman would not like his words, 
and so I had them written out by the reporters 
and I incorporate them in my remarks. Here 
they are, and I leave it to the House whether 
they bear out my construction of them : 

After the reading of the treatment of the 
insane in Massachusetts he says: 

" The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Butler] 
charged that the people of the State of Georgia had 
forfeited their State government, had forfeited their 
rights in the Union, had subjected themselves to the 
control of Congress, in consequence of the murders 
and crimes which they had committed. Does the 
gentleman not see that in this admission he subjects 
his own State, when the time shall come, when a 
different organization of this House shall exist, when 
another party may be in power, to the same recon- 
struction, to the same disposition that he would 
iutlict upon Georgia." 

Then the young member from New York 
[Mr. Cox] comes to the rescue, and I thought 
he was rather infringing an old proverb that 
"dog should not eat dog." On that principle 
I thought that " carpet-bagger'' should not at- 
tack "carpet-bagger." [Laughter.] I was a 
little surprised, too, that my friend from New 
York, with a name so likely to be punned upon, 
should. make a bad joke upon the name of the 
Governor of Georgia. [Laughter.] 

The gentleman insists that Georgia cannot 
be reconstructed as a State because she is al- 
ready a State. I insist, sir, that her recon- 
struction may be promoted notwithstanding 
she has some of the attributes of a State; and 
that is the point of difference between us. But 
he says there can be no reason for reconstruct- 
ing the State because of the celebrated " white- 
washing report" of the President, then General 



Grant, which said that the people of Georgia 
and other southern States were then in a 
repentant humor which fitted them to come 
into the Union. When was that report made ? 
In the summer of 1865. That was before the 
Democratic party, assisted by Andrew John- 
son, had given courage to the rebels to come 
and demand other rights than the right they 
then had — therightof each man to be hanged. 
I agree th?,t in 18G5, almost immediately after 
the surrender of General Lee and of General 
Johnston, after the crushing of the rebellion, 
the rebel people of Georgia went round pray- 
ing the negroes to take care of them, praying 
the Union men to intercede for them. They 
were then in condition to come into the Union 
and obey the laws of the Union and give to 
others the rights they desired for themselves. 

If the same state of feeling, if the same 
state of submission to the authority of the 
Government and the laws of the Union now 
obtained in Georgia as in 1865, when General 
Grant went through the State, I agree we 
should have no need to pass this bill. General 
Grant then saw the surrendered legions of Lee 
and Johnston ready to accept any terms from 
the conqueror, while we now see on the con- 
trary only repentant, recalcitrant, and defiant 
rebels committing manifold acts of wrong and 
murder of Union men ; so that, in the language 
of General Terry as read from the Clerk's desk, 
life, liberty, and property are not safe in the 
State of Georgia. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] 
was mistaken when he told the House that we 
never thought of this act of reconstruction of 
Georgia until the message of the President 
came in here. Sir, this bill differs in no essen- 
tial particular from the bill I introduced into 
this House at the last session under the in- 
struction of the Reconstruction Committee and 
which failed for want of time, which could not 
be passed for that and other reasons to which 
I need not stop now to advert to. This is no 
new thought of the majority of the House. It 
is the same bill in all essential particulars. It 
ought to have passed at the last session, and we 
would then have saved many valuable lives. 
For. says General Terry again, negro murders 
in Georgia are so numerous as hardly to be 
the subject of comment. 



12 



We would have saved many lives if we had 
passed this bill at the last session, and I thank 
God again, standing in the presence of the 
House as before, that upon my skirts is none 
of the blood of these martyred men — martyred 
in the cause of human freedom and equal 
rights. Let him who can say as much vote for 
the proposed postponement of this bill, for only 
such are entitled to vote. Postpone this bill, 
will you ! so that when the Governor and the 
members of the Legislature of Georgia who 
have been up here with us urging its passage 
shall return home they may be, by bloody hands 
of Kuklux Klans, sent to join the ranks of 
the murdered Ayer and his fellow-members 
of the Legislature of Georgia who last session 
stood here with us in defense of the Union and 
its laws. 

The gentleman says there is no word of our 
former legislation which requires the passage 
of this bill. Be it so. We are now making 
law, and if we did not make good laws before 
is that any reason why we should not make 
good laws now ? But I tell him there is a por- 
tion of our legislation which does require this. 
The civil rights bill requires it : that declaration 
of human rights second only to Magna Charta ; 
that declaration of rights which shall hereafter 
be proudly referred to by posterity wherever 
freedom and equal rights shall exist. The 
provisions of the civil rights bill are not exe- 
cuted to-day in Georgia in any one of its safe- 
guards, and it is time that we should have some 
kind of government there to put it in force. 

We are told by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Bingham] that General Terry can protect life 
and liberty in Georgia. General Terry says 
that he cannot, and his words have been read 
at the Clerk's desk; and he further says that 
the only way to make life, liberty, and property 
safe in Georgia is to pass a bill with exactly 
such provisions as this contains ; and upon this 
topic I would rather take the word of General 
Terry than the word of my friend from Ohio. 

Right here, Mr. Speaker, the stock denun- 
ciation against Massachusetts of my friend from 
New York [Mr. Cox] comes in. He says that 
Massachusetts requires that her voters shall be 
able to read her constitution and to write their 
names. True ! 

Mr. COX. With the gentleman's permission 



I will strengthen my remark, by saying that 
Massachusetts requires her senators to live five 
years in the State, putting them under some 
sort of servitude 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I cannot 
yield. I beg the gentleman's pardon, for he 
could have moved there and become a senator 
in Massachusetts in about the same time he 
became a Representative from the State of New 
York. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COX. The gentleman is himself a sort 
of carpet-bagger, having got here by moving 
from one place to another, and he ought there- 
fore to be tolerant to others who are in the 
same condition. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I am in 
favor of carpet-baggers. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COX. With the permission of the gen- 
tleman 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I cannot 
yield any further. 

Mr. COX. I wish to state only one point. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I cannot 
yield, as I have not time. 

Mr. COX. I refer the gentleman, then, to 
his colleague [Mr. Dawes] for the information 
I was about to state. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. He is an 
excellent reference. [Laughter.] 

Now, sir, allow me to finish what I was say- 
ing. Everybody in Massachusetts can vote, 
irrespective of color, who can read and write. 
The qualification is equal in its justice. An 
ignorant white man cannot vote there and a 
learned negro be excluded. But in the Georgia 
Legislature there was a white man that could 
hardly read and write, if at all, voted in because 
he was white, while a negro who spoke and 
wrote two languages was voted out solely be- 
cause he was black. It is well that Massachu- 
setts requires her citizens should read and write 
before being permitted to vote. Almost every- 
body votes there under that rule. Certainly 
every native-born person of proper age and sex 
votesthere. And thereare hundreds and thou- 
sands in this country who would thank God 
continually on their bended knees if it could 
be provided that the voters in the city of New 
York should be required to read and write. 
They would then believe republican govern- 
ment in form and fact far more safe than now. 



13 



The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] 
has made an argument for the postponement 
of this bill. In that he is seconded by the 
gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Farxsworth.] 
They ask to have it postponed till the third 
Wednesday of January. What advantage do 
they expect to gain from this? They have told 
us of none. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Bixgham] did not state one advantage which 
would be yielded by postponement. His whole 
argument was to show that this is not a good 
bill. What is the use, then, of postponing it? 
Why not vote it down now ? Why does he want 
this bill to live at all for any time? It is, 
according to the gentleman, so bad, so utterly 
vile, that he said it was not worthy to be con- 
sidered in the House of Representatives of the 
people. If so. why does he want to keejj it 
alive till the third Wednesday of January? Why 
not vote it down at once? His argument is 
suicidal. It is not an argument for postpone- 
ment ; it is only an argument against the pas- 
sage of the bill, and as such I am quite willing 
it should receive the due weight it deserves. 
It will not harm the bill. 

But the gentleman insists that the bill is in 
conflict with our laws heretofore passed. Well, 
assume that to be true. Why do we pass it at 
all ? It is because the laws heretofore passed 
have proved inoperative, and we mean that this 
bill should be in conflict with those inoperative 
laws. This is the first time that in a legisla- 
tive body I have heard it argued against a 
law that it repealed or made operative another 
law which it is desirable should be repealed or 
made operative. Such a law is passed simply 
because it is necessary to repeal or render oper- 
ative another law. The gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Bixgham] has not dared to say, he was 
bound too strongly by the noble record he made 
duringthe war to be permitted to say that this 
bill is in contravention of any principle of the 
Constitution of the United States. He would 
not so far go back on that record as to agree 
in that with the party with which he is now 
acting in opposition to this bill. I was glad to 
see that the gentleman was bound in this way, 
and that he only put it that this bill was in con- 
travention of some of the reconstruction laws 
passed in 18G7. 



Now, I want to serve notice on the gentle- 
man from Ohio, and on everybody else, that 
all political experience and all legislative wis- 
dom and all care for the interests of this coun- 
try did not die out when the Thirty-Ninth 
Congress adjourned without day. There was 
a little left then for our present use. But there 
was one thing said by the gentleman from Ohio 
which very much pained my ear. He tells us 
that there was a "line in the message of the 
President of the United States to Congress 
which the President of the United States never 
intended should have been there, and that he 
knew it." Now, if the gentleman means by 
"knowing it" that he knew it from the con- 
text, that is one thing; if he means that he 
knew it be because the President has told him 
so, I think he should make known to the House 
that he is authorized to make that statement. 

Is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] 
authorized to inform this House from the Presi- 
dent of the United States of what the Presi- 
dent has told him? Has the President author- 
ized him to say to this House that the President 
has made him a special messenger to inform 
this House that in a solemn message sent by 
the Executive to both Houses of Congress there 
was a line which he never intended should be 
in that message? Will he say that the Presi- 
dent has left this line in that document sent to 
us for our guidance, that he left it there for so 
many weeks and never let anybody know that 
it should not be there but the gentleman from 
Ohio? Are we to understand from him that 
the Executive thus deals with the Congress of 
the United States? I think there ought to be 
no mistake as to this. 

I have over and over again deprecated any 
one's undertaking to control the action of this 
House by means of pretended private commu- 
nications from the President of the United 
States. I never for my own part made any 
such intimations to the House, and I have no 
respect in that regard for any gentleman who 
does. When the President of the United 
States undertakes to communicate with a mem- 
ber of Congress as a private gentleman with a 
private gentleman neither of the parties ceases 
to be gentlemen, and no gentlemen report 
such a conversation. But if the President of 



14 



the United States makes such statements for 
the purpose of being repeated and influencing 
legislation, then he undertakes to log-roll with 
members of Congress, which I do not believe ; 
and then 

Mr. BINGHAM. I call the gentleman to 
order. He has no right to talk about the 
President log-rolling the House. I said noth- 
ing to justify any such language. I stand upon 
what I said. And the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts [Mr. Butler] has no power to move 
me a moment in the assertion I made here, 
that the President of the United States never 
meant by anything in his message that this 
House should impose upon Georgia the test- 
oaths of the reconstruction acts. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. What the 
gentleman says I take as he now says it, and 
am very glad to take it. What he said in his 
speech was what I commented on. 

Mr. BINGHAM. What I said was what I 
say now, sir. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The rec- 
ord will show. 

Mr. BINGHAM. Well, the record will show. 
My memory and judgment are as good as 
yours. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I will 

repeat what the gentleman at first said, so that 

there can be no mistake : 

" There is a line in the President's messagre -which 
he never intended should be there, and I know it." 

That was what I was deprecating, and the 
gentleman had no occasion to call me to order. 
I do not believe the high functionary that we 
have chosen the President, I do not believe 
General Grant undertakes to communicate to 
this House his recommendations in that way, 
and I do not want any gentleman to tell me 
that he does. 

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker 

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts yield ? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I cannot. 

Mr. BINGHAM. I only want to say that 
nobody said he communicated to this House. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I do not 
desire to have members come here, as we had 
all last session, and say the President wants 
this and the President wants that. I do not 



know, I ought not to know, what the President 
of the United States wants of the Legislature, 
except what he says to them through his solemn 
messages. I am quite content with such rev- 
elations of his purposes and policy, and satisfied 
with them. I have only adverted to it that we 
may never have anything more of what I be- 
lieve to be a most unseemly, as I know it is 
unparliamentary, exhibition of supposed exec- 
utive influence that has ever disgraced Con- 
gress, not from the Executive, but from those 
who pretend to give his words to control our 
votes. 

There is a single other argument to which 
the moment I have will allow me to call atten- 
tion. It is that this bill delegates power to 
the Governor of a State, and that this never 
was done before by United States laws, and 
never can be done again. I hold in my hand 
the Constitution of the United States, and sec- 
tion four of the fourth article provides that the 
Executive of a State shall have power to call 
upon the President of the United States to put 
in exercise his high functions and send troops 
to a State to put down domestic violence. At 
this point I only desire to send to the Chair 
and have read a letter from the Governor of 
Georgia, in which he says that the hour this 
bill becomes a law he will call a ineeting of 
the Legislature to assemble on the 12th day of 
January. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Washington. D. C. December 21, 1869. 

General : The moment the bill under discussion 
becomes a law I will issue a proclamation conven- 
inpr the Legislature, as provided in the bill, on the 
12th day of .lanuary, 1870. 

Respectfully. RUFUS B. BULLOCK. 

General B. F. Butler, Chairman, &c. 

Mr. MAYHAM. Will the gentleman allow 
me to ask him a question? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. If I have 
time I will. 

Mr. MAYHAM. I wish to ask the gentle- 
man if the same provision of the Constitution 
to which he refers does not provide that the 
Executive may call upon the President when 
the Legislature cannot be convened ? 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Yes, sir; 
unquestionably it does ; but still it authorizes 
an exercise of power by a State officer, which 
is the point at issue. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



15 



The question was taken ; and it was decided 
in the affirmative — yeas 121, nays 51, not 
voting 39 ; as follows : 

YEAS— Messrs. Allison, Ambler, Armstrong, Ar- 
nell, Asper, Bailey, Beaman. Beatty, Benjamin, 
Bennett. Benton, Boles, Bowen, Boyd, George M. 
Brooks, Buck, Buckley, Buffinton, Burchard, Bur- 
dett, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick K. Butler, 
Cessna, Amasa Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Conger, Cullom, 
Dawes, Deweeso, Dickey, Dixon, Donley, Duval, 
Ela, Ferriss, Ferry, Finkclnburg, Fisher, Fitch, (lar- 
field. Halo, Hamilton, llawley. Hay, Heaton, Hill, 
Hoar, Hoge, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Ingersoll, Jenckes, 
Alexander H. Jones, .Judd, Kellcy, Kellogg, Kelsey, 
Knapp, Lash, Lawrence, Logan, Loughridge, May- 
nard, McCarthy, McCrary, McGrew. Mercur, Elia- 
kim H. Moore, .Jesse H. Moore, William Moore, 
Daniel J. Morrell, Samuel P. Morrill, Myers, Neg- 
ley, O'Neill, Orth, Packard, Packer, Paine, Palmer, 
Peters, Phelps, Poland, Pomeroy, Prosscr, Roots, 
Sanford, Sargent, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shanks, 
Lionel A. Sheldon, Porter Sheldon, John A. Smiti, 
William J. Smith, Worthington C. Smith, William 



003 865 569 3 



Smyth, Starkweather, Stevens. Stevenson, Stokes. 
Stoughton, Strickland, Strong. Taffe, Tanner, Town- 
send, Twichell, Tyner, Upson, Van Horn, Cadwalader 
C. Washburn, Welker, Wheeler, Whitteniore, Wilk- 
inson. Williams, John T. Wilson, and Winans— 1l:L 

NAYS— Messrs. Adams, Archer. Axtell, Beck. 
Biggs, Bingham. Bird, Calkin, Cox, Crebs, Dickin- 
son, Dox, Eldridge, Farnsworth, (xetz, Greene. Gris- 
wold, Haldeman, Hambleton, Hamill, Hawkins, 
Holman, Johnson, Thomas L. .Jones, Kerr, Knott, 
Marshall, Mayham, McCormick, JMcNccly, Morgan, 
Mungen, Niblack, Potter, Randall, Reeves, Kiee, 
Rogers, Joseph S. Smith. Stone, Strader, Swann, 
Sweeney. Trimble, Van Trump. Voorhees, Wells, 
Eugene JI. Wilson, Winchester, Witcher, and Wood- 
ward — 51. 

NOT V0TIN(1!— Messrs. Ames. Banks, B.arnum. 
Blair, James Brooks, Burr, Cake, Churchill, Clarke, 
Cleveland, Clinton L.Cobb, Cowles, Davis, I)ockery, 
Dyer, Fox, GilfiUan. Gollad.Ty, Haight. Hays, Heflin, 
Hoag, Hopkins, Julian, Ketcham, Laflin, Lynch, 
Morrissey, Reading, Schumaker. Shcrrod, Slocuin, 
Stiles, Tillman, Van Auken, Ward, William B. 
Washburn, Willard, and Wood— 39. 

So the bill was passed. 



% 




003 



HoUing 

pH 8. 

MiURmiF 




003 



866 669^ 



HoUingier 

pH 8 J 

MiURunH)3.2193 



